Anand Avati <anand.avati at gmail.com> wrote: > We are in the process of formalizing the governance model of the > GlusterFS project. Historically, the governance of the project has been > loosely structured. This is an invitation to all of you to participate in > this discussion and provide your feedback and suggestions on how we should > evolve a formal model. IMO GlusterFS needs a governance that fits core developpers' tastes. After all we speak about making decisions impacting the way they work. As a minor contributor, I do not feel legitimate to push in any direction. I can just share my experience in governance in projets I know about (NetBSD, milter-greylist), if someone is interested. I can also point what looks like governance failure to me. It is a bit annoying to have a show-stopper bug and see release cycle going from qa to alpha to beta to release just like a river flows to the sea. Other already said it, but there need to be some process to settle (bug, feature) vs (release schedule) conflicts. It can be a single release engineer, a release engineering team as a round table, or a democratic vote from whatever group is prefered, but at least there should be some accounted decision here. -- Emmanuel Dreyfus http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz manu at netbsd.org
